EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 252 (2019) MATEC Web Conf., 252 (2019) 02007 References
Open Access
Issue
MATEC Web Conf.
Volume 252, 2019
III International Conference of Computational Methods in Engineering Science (CMES’18)
Article Number 02007
Number of page(s) 6
Section Application of Computer Programs in Technology
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201925202007
Published online 14 January 2019
  1. K. Kluza, G. J. Nalepa, Information and Software Technology 91, 123 (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. F. Hasić, J. De Smedt, J. Vanthienen, Decision Support Systems, 107, 1 (2018). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. G. J. Nalepa, K. Kluza, K. Kaczor, Proposal of an inference engine architecture for business rules and processes, In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing, 453 (Springer, 2013) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. K. Kluza K., P. Wiśniewski, K. Jobczyk, A. Ligęza, A. Suchenia, Comparison of selected modeling notations for process, decision and system modeling, In: 2017 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 1095 (IEEE, 2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Object Management Group. UML. (OMG, 1996) [Google Scholar]
  6. R. Klimek, Towards deductive-based support for software development processes, In: 2013 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 1389 (IEEE, 2013) [Google Scholar]
  7. R. Eshuis, R. Wieringa, A Comparison of Petri Net and Activity Diagram Variants, In: Proc. of 2nd Int. Coll. on Petri Net Technologies for Modelling Communication Based Systems, 93 (2001) [Google Scholar]
  8. Y.L. Chang, S. Chen, CC. Chen, I. Chen, Workflow process definition and their applications in e-commerce, In: 2000 Proceedings of International Symposium on Multimedia Software Engineering, 193 (IEEE, 2000) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. T. Schattkowsky, UML 2.0 – Overview and Perspectives in SoC Design, In: Proceedings of the Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition (DATE’05) (2005) [Google Scholar]
  10. G. Łabiak, M. Adamski, Zastosowanie języka UML w modelowaniu sterownika dyskretnego, In: KNWS ’06, 50 (2006) [Google Scholar]
  11. K. Hinkelmann, UML Class Diagrams (2014) [Google Scholar]
  12. S.W. Ambler, UML 2 Class Diagrams: An Agile Introduction, http://www.agilemodeling.com/artifacts/classDiagram.htm (accessed: 2018-06-15) [Google Scholar]
  13. M. Chinosi, A. Trombetta, Computer Standards & Interfaces 24, 124 (2012) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. K. Kluza, P. Wiśniewski, Spreadsheet-Based Business Process Modeling, In: 2016 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 1355 (IEEE, 2016) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. OMG. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN): Version 2.0 Specification. (OMG, 2012) [Google Scholar]
  16. Object Management Group. Decision model and notation. Beta1 (OMG, 2014) [Google Scholar]
  17. J. Taylor, A. Fish, J. Vanthienen, P. Vincent, iBPMS: Intelligent BPM Systems: Intelligent BPM Systems: Impact and Opportunity, ser. BPM and Workflow Handbook Series. Future Strategies. (WfMC, 2013) [Google Scholar]
  18. T. Debevoise, J. Taylor, J. Sinur, R. Geneva The MicroGuide to Process and Decision Modeling in BPMN / DMN: Building More Effective Processes by Integrating Process Modeling with Decision Modeling (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014) [Google Scholar]
  19. A. Suchenia, K. Kluza, K. Jobczyk, P. Wiśniewski, M. Wypych, A. Ligęza, Supporting BPMN Process Models with UML Sequence Diagrams for Representing Time Issues and Testing Models, In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science 10246, 589 (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. D. Peixoto, V. Batista, A. Atayde, E. Borges, R. Resende, C. I. P. S. Pádua, A comparison of BPMN and UML 2.0 activity diagrams, In : VII Simposio Brasileiro de Qualidade de Software 56, 012010 (2008) [Google Scholar]
  21. C. V. Geambasu, Accounting and Management Information Systems 11, 637 (2012) [Google Scholar]
  22. L. Eloranta, E. Kallio, I. Terho, A notation evaluation of BPMN and UML activity diagrams, In: Special course in information systems (SoberIT, 2006) [Google Scholar]
  23. J. C. Recker, M. zur Muehlen, K. Siau, J. Erickson, M. Indulska, Measuring method complexity: UML versus BPMN, In: Association for Information Systems (AIS, 2009) [Google Scholar]
  24. D. Birkmeier, S. Kloeckner, S. Overhage, An Empirical Comparison of the Usability of BPMN and UML Activity Diagrams for Business Users, In : ECIS 2010, 2 (2010) [Google Scholar]
  25. O. Macek, K. Richta, The BPM to UML activity diagram transformation using XSLT, In: Dateso 2009, 119 (2009) [Google Scholar]
  26. N. Q. Bao, A proposal for a method to translate BPMN model into UML activity diagram, In: 13th International Conference on Business Information Systems (2010) [Google Scholar]
  27. M.A. Cibrán, Translating BPMN Models into UML Activities, In: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing 17, 236 (Springer, 2009) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. M. Januszka, W. Moczulski, Acquisition and knowledge representation in the product development process with the use of augmented reality. In Concurrent Engineering Approaches for Sustainable Product Development in a Multi-Disciplinary Environment, In : Proceedings of the 19th ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering, 315 (Springer, 2013) [Google Scholar]
  29. G. J. Nalepa, K. Kluza, International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 22, 485 (2012) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.